Thursday, September 20, 2007From the Washington Post:
Judge Posner's majority opinion declared the benefits of voting "elusive," given the small chance that one could cast a decisive ballot in an election, and he analogized voter fraud to the crime of "littering."
This is typical sophistic rigamarole. The value of voting rights doesn't rest with the probability that one's vote will alter an electoral outcome. To say that a right can be violated if there's no likelihood it will be exercised would be like saying that we could pass laws saying a poor person can't run for office because there's only a small chance that they will win. Would Posner uphold such a law despite its obvious unconstitutionality? Furthermore, it matters a great deal in the aggregate if a large number of people are being systematically discriminated against, which not only deprives a group of liberty but undermines the democracy itself.
Not that I expect Posner to care much about democracy...